Loved the picture of the tramp with the sign, "It's my hot body. I do what I want."

Yeah, she can go right ahead with her body and do what she wants. But the thing that arrogant, short-sighted, and narcissistic trollops like her forget is that "Father Time takes away what Mother Nature gave you".When she hits 30 or so and the baby rabies sets in, let's see what she has to say when the majority of men say to her (and her kind), "It's MY body, MY sperm, and now it's MY choice. And you sluts are NOT chosen."

It's just the distillation of feminism on the sexual level, really. Second wave feminism was mostly based on and constructed around the pill, and separating sexuality from reproduction. Therefore it follows, according to the logic of feminism, that sexuality becomes about pure pleasure -- pleasing oneself. That approach to sexuality leads directly to sluttiness, because the main "check" on slutty behavior and appearance is the connection between sex and reproduction (or the future prospects thereof). In a world where reproduction is severed from sex, women are "freed up" to behave like hypergamous sluts, if they choose to, and all too many will choose to do so because it pleases them to do so. Seen this way, it's perfectly logical for these feminist women to be protesting for their right to be sluts without criticism, because it's the sine qua non of feminist sexual life.

Of course, we haven't completely severed sex and reproduction. Hence the need for abortion on demand without questions or restrictions as a main feminist plank as well. But slutwalks make "sense" from the perspective of feminist logic: the perfect feminist is not a mother, but a slut who behaves essentially like an unpaid prostitute.

When men announce to the world that they view certain women as sluts to be despised, I no longer feel connected to such men as part of the society I inhabit.

What is it that matters for such men? It is obviously not beauty or love or family. These men are not motivated by a concern for others or the good of society. Such men want the freedom to shame women without impediment (misogyny).

Then there is the question Laura raises of why a good man would care about a woman who is willing to give up nothing for you or for other decent men like you. Remember, the original Toronto slutwalk began in response to the police officer who stated, in an official capacity, that women should stop dressing "like sluts" if they want to stay safe. I submit that the Toronto police officer is not required to care about any woman. However, he is required to do his job without insulting half of his constituency or picking-and-choosing which female victims he deems worthy. As for the women's part of the deal, well, presumably, all or most of the women pay taxes that fund this guy's salary and vote for the people who hire and promote him.

Notably, male crime victims are also often doing stupid things when they are beaten up or mugged. Sometimes, they've been drinking a lot. Sometimes, they are walking down dark alleys alone. Sometimes, they are provoking some big beefy guy in a bar. Sometimes, they are escalating a confrontation needlessly. Yet, male victims don't get nearly the ration of shit women do. There's no word like "slut" to convey that these guys had it coming. They don't get lectured and tsk-tsked by police and other authority figures constantly. They aren't told they had better "earn" their right to physical safety.

Truly, sluts get a bad rap. They've been very good to me. Of course, non-sluts have also been very good to me.Sex is so tied up with societal structure, instincts, & raw emotions like desire and jealousy, that I doubt full peace and agreement are possible. I'm recommending tolerance & reason & good will. Good luck to us all.

Georgina, why would you defend sluts? I can understand why the dykes are out marching; I can understand why bitter or jaded women might be.

But why would a woman who cares about herself and her future children do so? Such a woman needs a positive and healthy culture of relationships to exist in society, rather than a bare assertion of sexual power.

Do you really think that it is self-respecting, caring women who endorse calling other women "sluts"? And that it's the mean, bitter, jaded women who think otherwise? Methinks you have things a bit backwards.

You also seem to be taking the Slutwalk too literally. It's actually a cheeky send-up of the whole notion that some women women are horrible "sluts" to be reviled while others are clearly not. Any normal woman at some point or another has done something, or worn something, or said something or gone somewhere that could be considered "slutty" in someone's eyes. And virtually every woman who is raped undergoes intense scrutiny of her dress and conduct.

While the Slutwalk is cheeky and all in good fun, the underlying message is a serious one. Attitudes like that of the Toronto police officer (the one who advised women "don't dress like sluts") serve not only to insult women but to make women less safe. When such attitudes are prevalent (especially among those who, like the officer, are sworn to serve and protect) women are far less likely to report sexual assaults for fear of being reviled and shamed. Predators know this and take advantage of it.

As I write this comment, I am more and more genuinely amazed at your question, Mark. I can't see how any self-respecting woman could be expected to tolerate the use of the term "slut" used in any kind of serious way (especially by a public official). The term "slut" insults all women because it communicates that it is suitable to demean a woman for having sexuality, for being a sexual creature. I fail to see how threatening potential rape victims with the "slut" label fosters the "positive and healthy culture of relationships" you advise me to be concerned about. Rather, I think a culture of respecting women, even sexy ones, as human beings, on the same basis with men, is a much more positive foundation upon which to build a happy and stable future for one's children.

Wait a minute, Georgina: Your parody of Mr. Richardson's statement is incongruous. And the difference matters.

He wrote, "When women announce to the world that they are proud to be sluts, then I no longer feel connected to them as part of the society I inhabit."

But you, Georgina, have changed it to "When men announce to the world that they view certain women as sluts to be despised, I no longer feel connected to such men as part of the society I inhabit."

You are lying. No man here, let alone, Mr. Richardson, has said that they "view" these women as sluts, as if the judgment were their own. Did you not see the pictures? These women called themselves sluts. They are not ashamed; they are proud of it. Which means they are proud of sluttiness. Which means they do not know the Truth, which we know, according to which sluttiness is shameful, not honorable. Which means they inhabit a different moral universe than we do.

The childish narcissism behind the Slutwalk reminds me of this South Park cameo.

If women decide to slut it up and as a consequence put themselves in danger of getting raped, no one is obliged to protect them, especially men.

I have a problem with the one sidedness of the 'I'll do what I want because I am naturally in a stronger position' argument in that only women are allowed societally to make that argument. If for instance men were to say "I have the right to beat up woman X because I am naturally stronger", the argument would not fly.

However, the reason it wouldn't fly in public today is not for moral reasons but because most men would prevail and most woman would not.

I think that there is a fundamental social compact between men and women in that men suppress their physical violence in return for women suppressing their sexual expression. If one party reneges on their end of the bargain, the other party is ipso facto released from their obligations.

GC,Thank you for your comment. Which part of beauty, love and family do you see the SlutWalk as promoting?If these women are free to behave as they do (and they are free to do so), then I am equally free to express my opinion that not only are they sluts, they are stupid sluts, in love with a vision of themselves that most of us do not share. Was that the love you meant?

Is 'slut' like the N word? When a woman refers to herself as a slut, she is empowered. But if the same word is used by a man, it's misogynistic?

"Is it just me, or is every slut walk composed of hideously ugly women? Why are there no hot sluts?"

They are "hot." They are not pretty. "Hot" is a left-liberal leveler. Not every woman can be pretty. But almost every woman can be "hot" in the sense that they can provoke lustful looks from men by dressing and acting a certain way.

You and Mark and the other commenters on this thread have made it painfully clear that you do view certain women as "sluts." Indeed, the concept of the "slut" is one that you and Mark take in deadly earnest.

The mistake in your analysis of my comment is that you are taking the Slutwalk too literally. The Slutwalk is actually a cheeky send-up of (as the Slutwalk website says) "the myth and stereotype" of the slut. By mocking the whole concept of "slut," we chip away at the term's power to shame and harm individual women.

LUZU,

Yes, you are free to think and say whatever you like about "sluts." Conversely, we can mock and disdain you for doing so. That's how discourse in a rowdy democratic culture works.

I fail to see how "slut" bashing promotes beauty, love, or the family. "Sluttiness" is in the eye of the beholder. It is arbitrary, undefined, and applies to women in all sorts of different circumstances. Virtually any normal woman with any degree of normal sexual feelings or sexual expression is likely to have done something, said something, or gone somewhere such that her conduct would be deemed "slutty" by someone. Virtually every woman who is raped can expect to have her conduct scrutinized for sluttiness.

The police officer's comment that women must stop dressing like "sluts" in order to reduce their likelihood of victimization is insulting and unproductive. It serves to make women LESS safe. A woman is less likely to report an assault if she expects to be reviled and shamed by her local authorities -- and predators know this. Essentially all-too-prevalent attitudes like the police officers, that women who act in particular ways deserve to be shamed and reviled, can serve only to embolden rapists.

So, yes, I think that attacking the use of the concept or term "slut" is good for all women -- our mothers, sisters, daughters, friends. Fostering a culture of respect for women as well as men is a far better foundation for family life than one in which your daughter can be tarred with an ostracizing label just for flirting with a boy more enthusiastically than others approve or wearing a hemline someone else deems too high.

"Slut" bashing is an ugly, hateful phenomenon. I am amazed at Mark's notion that women who care about themselves and others would support lashing out at women with the term "slut" -- and that only bitter, jaded women would oppose crapping on other women in this way. Surely it's the other way around?

Oh Geez. I basically said some of the same things twice in different ways. I had thought mistakenly that blogger ate my comment from several hours ago, but I see now that it has appeared.

To Anonymous who says that Mark never said that "sluts" are to be despised -- c'mon now, who are kidding? Anyone who uses the word "slut" without irony clearly intends the hateful connotations of the word.

The term "slut" insults all women because it communicates that it is suitable to demean a woman for having sexuality, for being a sexual creature.

No, that doesn't catch it. Men don't dislike women being sexual creatures. On the contrary, men respond well to women who have a bit of feminine charisma.

Georgina, here's one way of looking at this. If most women slept around promiscuously, then it wouldn't mean much when a woman said yes to a man. He wouldn't feel like she was giving much to him, as she had given herself to so many other men as well.That's why men look for two things from women: they are very much interested in the sexual relationship, but they also want it from a woman who doesn't indiscriminately say yes to many men.

Does this matter much? Yes, it does, because you can't expect men to make the great commitments to women when women cheapen what they are offering men. That's why Laura Wood's point is so important: men will cease to care in a society of sluts.

Spot on with not caring about sluts. Ask men if they'd step in if a woman was being raped out in public whether she's a slut or not. Just don't be surprised at the number of replies that say she probably deserved it. And you will have lot of them that say it.

You want to dress like sluts, go after the cads, bully the dads around and then expect the social contract to still apply? I don't think so. Sluts and loose women aren't the bane of men but of women and until women speak up about this and other issues loudly, then don't expect the men to really care. All it says to us is that women are one in the same and they stand by each other no matter the behavioral standards shown (or lack of) because they are a part of the sisterhood. And as has been shown time and time again, the sisterhood always comes first in all areas of society.

Funny thing about anonymity of the internet is many men aren't afraid to tell the truth. So go ahead and ask us guys if we saw a woman being raped out in public just how many would interfere?

You are very much correct that I do regard some women as sluts, and that I use the term without irony in a derogatory manner.

But I've known sluts. I remember meeting one girl at uni who was a very pretty, likeable 17-year-old. She embarked on sleeping with just about the entire male population of Melbourne Uni. She'd caught herpes within a month. After about a year she began to get depressed, started dressing in a more slovenly way, drank a lot, and felt uncontrollable jealousy in her relationships. She ballooned in her weight and finally announced she was giving up relationships with men.

I had admired this woman as a 17-year-old and it was painful for me to watch her self-destruct.

It's not good enough to claim that because there are no definite boundaries to what might be defined as sluttiness that we can only respect everybody as a path to good relationships.

Was I meant to respect what this girl was doing? The truth is I felt a mixture of sadness and disgust at what she was doing.

By the logic of your argument, Georgina, I ought to respect women who choose to become prostitutes - otherwise I am guilty of being "hateful" and not fostering a culture of respect toward women.

I am not seeing the relevance of your comment. I don't think the women at the Slutwalk are upset because they aren't getting enough marriage proposals. And I don't think the word "slut" is just a benign description of men's sexual preferences. If so, it wouldn't be used to blame women who get raped, or to socially ostracize certain girls or women.

Look, I believe in consensual relationships. Men AND women should be allowed to employ whatever criteria they like in choosing their partners. If a man doesn't want to be with a woman who has slept around (even if he has done the same himself), that's entirely his right and his business.

Of course, many women also have their own criteria. I couldn't imagine being married to someone who would categorize certain women as "sluts" or someone who would view me as "offering him" sex. (Ew.) My own husband seems to be under the impression that sex is something we do together, not something I am "offering" him so that he will motivated to stay with me.

Anyway, again, this seems to have little to do with the public shaming of women for being sexual. The idea that men enjoy sexuality in women is only a half-truth. Women get shamed all the time by men and by women for how they dress, flirt, date, etc.

You say that a man won't intervene to help a slut who is being attacked. Ok. It's his right not to. There is no legal duty (at least not where I am from) to intervene to help a crime victim. It is certainly a good thing to do, but not required under the social contract. Indeed, I would think it wise in many instances for the man to simply call the police, especially if the attacker is armed or dangerous. But if you won't even move yourself to do that, then you are still within the social contract but you've got some issues, friend!

What I do insist on is that a man not rape a woman he deems a slut and that he be held accountable to the furthest limits of the law if he does so.

I couldn't imagine being married to someone who would categorize certain women as "sluts"

But you are. Your husband definitely thinks of some women as sluts. There is no man alive who doesn't. It's a visceral reaction, not a political choice.

My own husband seems to be under the impression that sex is something we do together, not something I am "offering" him so that he will motivated to stay with me.

Of course sex is something you do together. But you're wrong to dismiss the idea that sex is something women offer to men in return for male commitment. That's a very longstanding part of reality, the truth of which you would discover if you ever decided to stop offering your husband sex.

Anyway, it seems that you are another "do as I say, not as I do" feminist. You defend sluttiness in women whilst you yourself are doing the traditional thing of expressing your sexuality in a loving relationship with a husband.

Yes, but you make sex sound like a one-way street. as though I am giving my husband sex and he is giving me commitment, as we each care more about one than the other. In reality, we are both giving each other sex and commitment, and they are both equally important to both of us.

I am surprised by the accusation that I am saying "do as I say, not as I do." My conduct is absolutely 100% in line with what I am telling people to do. In other words, I refrain from heaping sex-based derision on women who dress sexy or flirt or have consensual sex. I also refrain from engaging in sexual double standards, and I do not blame rape victims for their own rapes.

I never said, "Don't get married and don't have a monogamous relationship." I do recognize that those things are not for everyone. I also recognize that marriage and monogamy doesn't exactly render a woman immune from charges of sluttiness, especially if she is ever attacked.

Georgina, you're pushing the standard liberal line on morality, namely that people can choose to do whatever they want, provided they don't restrict the similar freedom of others.

It's not an approach which is going to hold together the goods you currently enjoy, namely a monogamous marriage.

Your marriage relies on older, preliberal sources of moral belief.

Your defence of sluts is based on your liberalism, on your belief that people should choose to behave as they wish and be respected in doing so.

But if either you or your husband applied this philosophy to your marriage it would be doomed. As you well know, a marriage requires both the husband and wife to make sacrifices for each other, to be oriented to the happiness and well-being of each other, to put the interests of their children and their society over their own, to restrain the desires they might feel to pursue other relationships and so on.

That's the inconsistency. You are choosing a higher good for yourself, and accepting the moral requirements to make this work, whilst preaching a moral philosophy to society that a culture of monogamous marriage will not survive.

If the best you can say to your future son is "choose whatever you like and respect others for making their own choices" then he will not be fit to be a husband. It is not an adequate moral foundation for a successful marriage.

I am just not seeing the inconsistency. Or why it follows from my valuing of my marriage that I should spit on so-called "sluts." Or why teaching my son to despise "sluts" will make him a better husband.

And, of course, the term "slut" remains undefined. It generally seems to mean any woman who is engaging in sexual behavior or sexual expression of which the speaker disapproves. I suppose you could attempt to define the term here, but that won't change the fact that "slut" is a completely slippery, vague yet powerful term in real life.

Kind of reminds me of what happened yesterday. There was a composition read outloud written by a liberal and it was railing against "beauty standards". I was inwardly chuckling because any functioning society needs to have "beauty standards" unless of course you desire anarchy or disorder. Another interesting thing was how they didn't understand was that liberals also 'set' the "beauty standards" nowadays.

Coming back to the topic you should read one of the things these women said during "Slutwalks". They alluded at how every woman is a slut, there is no exact definition for a slut, how "promiscuous women are not slutty" (illogical really), we are liberated, it is about me, it is about freedom and how we are all equal.

A bad, decaying, confused or immoral society may celebrate them but very few good ones may do the same.

"Harlot" is a much more fun word, I grant you. But the issue of definition is still there.

And even if you say that it is merely a word of "disapproval" (which frankly I don't think does justice to the hostile way in which the word is generally employed), I wonder what a business a professional police officer has expressing his personal moral disapproval of the dress sense of a good part of his constituency?

I disagree that this is some minor little issue. The disrespectful treatment of rape victims is endemic to the system in much of the world even today, and it is a fact that renders all women less safe.

The honorable thing for men to do is to protect them. AND point out what they're doing is wrong.

No it isn't...It is also not honorable for a person to enable the lifestyle of a drug addict or a self absorbed individual.

Georgina said:

The police officer's comment that women must stop dressing like "sluts" in order to reduce their likelihood of victimization is insulting and unproductive. It serves to make women LESS safe. A woman is less likely to report an assault if she expects to be reviled and shamed by her local authorities -- and predators know this. Essentially all-too-prevalent attitudes like the police officers, that women who act in particular ways deserve to be shamed and reviled, can serve only to embolden rapists.

How does it make women less safe? If women dress appropriately, they will be much less likely to be raped IN THE FIRST PLACE which renders largely irrelevant the prospect of women not being believed when they cry rape.In fact if most women were to dress appropriately, police officers would be much more likely to take an alleged rape victim seriously. All the sluts do is create unnecessary extra work for police in much the same way that a woman who knowingly leaves her car unlocked, unattended and in a dangerous neighborhood and then complains her car got robbed does.

People have the right to disapprove of the sexual habits of others. The reason for this is that overall level of sexual mores in a culture impacts everyone in that culture, regardless of their own personal behavior. In particular, the increased prevalence of sluttiness in women since the sexual revolution has led many people -- men and women alike -- to have much greater difficulty in the mate market if they do not believe in slutty behavior themselves. It's basically a massive case of "dumbing mores down".

The word slut has power for one reason: men like to have sex with sluts, but they don't like to marry them, because they are a very poor marriage risk. Men will seek to identify and select "out" promiscuous women when they are "mate" selecting, but select "in" promiscuous women when they are "sex" selecting. Either way, picking out the sluts is something men do and will always do, whether the more "enlightened" ones admit to it or not (hint: almost all of them, if married, are married to women who were not sluts before they were married).

If women want to shame men for behaving promiscuously, they can go right ahead -- no skin off my nose. And last time I checked, a fair number of women *do* shame men like Tucker Max, calling him a "manwhore" and so on. I have no problem with that -- if the shoe fits, wear it. I doubt he has a problem with it either, really.

"Notably, male crime victims are also often doing stupid things when they are beaten up or mugged. Sometimes, they've been drinking a lot. Sometimes, they are walking down dark alleys alone. Sometimes, they are provoking some big beefy guy in a bar. Sometimes, they are escalating a confrontation needlessly. Yet, male victims don't get nearly the ration of shit women do. There's no word like "slut" to convey that these guys had it coming. They don't get lectured and tsk-tsked by police and other authority figures constantly. They aren't told they had better "earn" their right to physical safety."

Actually many crime victims are doing something stupid when they are victimized. Criminals know how to look for and exploit vulnerabilities. Teaching people how to appear less vulnerable and therefore how to reduce their chances of becoming victims is not victim-blaming. The officer in question never said that a woman asks for or wants to be victimized. What he suggested (his example might have been better) was that women can take steps to protect themselves and recduce the likelihood of becoming victims.

As for men not taking the ration of shit that women do, male victims typically take far more abuse (being called sissies, pussies, wimps, etc.) and receive considerably less support and sympathy.

I no longer feel connected to such men as part of the society I inhabit.

Who cares?

However, he is required to do his job without insulting half of his constituency or picking-and-choosing which female victims he deems worthy.

Idiot logic.

What the Toronto police officer pointed out was the truth, and his offense was in reaffirming reality. This "offense" is of the same logic as when a fat women becomes offended when you point out that she is fat. The offense lays in refusing to partake in her world view of reality denial. I'm past the point of caring about the feelings of people who want to live in fantasy land.

What is it that matters for such men? It is obviously not beauty or love or family. These men are not motivated by a concern for others or the good of society. Such men want the freedom to shame women without impediment (misogyny).

Another example of idiot logic.

I like women (therefore not a misogynist) and I really don't care what sluts do in their spare time at all. I don't actually want them to get raped even. But pointing out the a woman has a higher risk of sexual assault if she dresses provocatively, and viewing a woman who chooses to do such negatively ,within a cultural context of assuming that individuals have a responsibility for their own safety, is stating an objective fact and not a logical fallacy imbued with malice.

What is it that matters for such men? It is obviously not beauty or love or family. These men are not motivated by a concern for others or the good of society. Such men want the freedom to shame women without impediment (misogyny).

The protests are being driven by sluts who care about what other people think about them, Not men. Sluts don't like the fact that people view them negatively. This is not about men trying to shame sluts, its about sluts being indignant that people don't think exactly like them on the issue. They're trying to make people toe the party line.

Georgina considers a misogynist to be someone who does not affirm female autonomy whereas in reality, the definition of a misogynist is someone who hates women. So Georgina either believes that certain female actions do not have negative consequences for either men or society OR she does not care whether or not the consequences are negative for those other than women.If she believes the former, she is incredibly stupid. If she believes the latter, she is a psychopath.

Why do you men assign to women the ostensible total control over sexuality? Who made the sluts your decision makers, your masters?

Why do you not teach that it is wrong for an adult to aborogate their right of control to another?

Look deeper. Mark. The focus is wrong. Ask yourself Lenin's useful question about the power of the purges: who in the end has power over whom? Unless you believe men to have less human potential then the answer is obvious. MM

Conservatives believe in the fallen nature of man. There will always be acts of evil perpetrated amongst us, even in a well-ordered society. The argument of the feminists, that we men can simply tell other men not to rape and all will be well, is a utopian misreading of human nature.

A concerned father will advise his daughters (and his sons) how to act prudently to minimise the risk of becoming a victim of crime. He will not send his daughter out in a microskirt late at night to get drunk and wander home alone in the hope that his appeals to criminal men not to rape will finally be heeded.

A father who provides advice to his daughters to be prudent is not depriving them of a significant freedom. A woman's life is not ruined if she stays with friends when she is out at night, doesn't get paralytic drunk and dresses stylishly rather than sluttily.

They will argue that there are cases in which women are attacked even when they are acting prudently - which is, of course, true.

Which is really to say that there are no guarantees that we will not become the victim of crime, even if we lessen the chances by not taking unnecessary risks.

That doesn't mean we have to be fatalistic about crime as a society. If feminists really do want to protect women from crime they could agitate for some of the following measures:

a) maintain psychiatric units which keep the mentally disturbed off the streets

b) long jail sentences for the most serious offenders (we had a case here in Melbourne recently where a man killed another man, served just ten years, got out and killed another man and served ten years, got out and then murdered a woman - the lenient treatment led to two unncessary deaths)

c) the stability of family life. If you've ever watched the Crime Investigation channel you'll have realised that most of the criminals have highly dysfunctional family backgrounds.

d) a culture of dating which leaves women less exposed to crimes motivated by jealousy. The worst of it today is when women think it exciting to date dangerous men, but when things start to go belly up she is met with possessive rage when she attempts to leave. If you look at the stats most intimate partner violence isn't committed by a woman's current partner but by the ex she is trying to leave behind.

That's just a few of the options that spring to mind. But I've rarely heard feminists talk about them. The focus of feminists is on the belief that law-abiding men somehow have it in their power to flick a switch and make the criminally minded men respect women.

So Georgina either believes that certain female actions do not have negative consequences for either men or society OR she does not care whether or not the consequences are negative for those other than women.

My impression is that it's the former. I thought her persuasive writing skills were good, but it was surface level argument - she tended to sidestep discussion about real world consequences.

Of course the Marxist were wrong , SOcial Pathologist, but the question is useful. We , as a society, will be more powerful when we ALL stand up for our men as full human beings. When we don't accept advertising that belittles men as powerless in the home and jokes that portray men as powerless when faced with a sexual woman. That demeans my husband and my son. I won't accept it.

The slut walk is another angle on the same who-whom question?

My answer to Lenin's question is that criminals have power as long as we as a society give it to them. My men do not belong to a group of putative criminals (rapists).

The slut walk reminds us that by labling women sluts we allow men who rape a get out of jail free card, because then men can have their sexual power taken by the "slut" and the "provocation" , the overcoming of their will allows them to become less than men, less than adult, less than responsible and in their minds less criminal.

Mark, it is not THE FEMINISTS job, as if there were one single group, and even if there were it wouldn't be their job, to fight for these measures alone or even at all. Each makes their own choices, imperfectly in an imperfect world.

In my personal experience I know of women's groups working in criminal law, family law, mental health and most definitely for many many years domestic violence. Many groups are not politically oriented because they feel that their practical expertise is what is needed not prosletizing. .

The issues of dating are a private matter that are beyond the intrusion of any formal organisation, Mark. Australians like to keep the boundaries quite separate between private and public domains. The great dificulty that the law had to criminalise domestic violence for the last 30 years is testimony to the resistance of those boundaries.

The pulpit was the last beacon for disseminating the values to daughters - I suppose internet is it's substitute , but it's s bit like SETI ! Martha Maus

The slut walk reminds us that by labling women sluts we allow men who rape a get out of jail free card, ...........become less than men, less than adult, less than responsible and in their minds less criminal.

Let's drop the namby pamby New Age psychobabble.

Sluttish behavior in no way justifies rape. The two issues are separate to normal people, it's the ideologically warped that can't see the difference.

People shouldn't steal, but flaunting your wealth in a high crime area is a sure way to get mugged. The issue here is not about justifying the crime, it's about not making yourself a victim. It's about taking due care of yourself.

Sure, in an ideal world people wouldn't kill, steal, assault or burp loudly at the dinner table. Maybe in Marxist namby pamby land, with enough government coercion and torture, all evil could be banished, but I'm afraid its not going to happen in the real world. Therefore people are always going to have to account for the evil in others. Behaving in such a way that does not acknowledge the existence of evil, is naive at best (which the sluts aren't) or moronic. The protests are a demand for others to be just as stupid as the protesters.

It looks like blogger ate a bunch of my comments (and responses to my comments).

I will respond to the issue of whether I believe there are negative consequences to certain female behaviors.

I think that rapists are going to rape, if they have the opportunity, regardless of how women dress or what they do. However, I also believe that there are things a woman does that may make her more vulnerable to being selected by a rapist. Being dead drunk or perhaps even dressing a certain way (though I am not sure what the crime stats say about the latter) means the predator knows that she will be less likely to report the assault and less likely to be believed. This is partly because of the very societal attitudes the Toronto cop was promoting.

It is disingenuous to suggest that the Toronto cop was just giving helpful advice. First of all, I have no idea what he means by "dressing like a slut." This is a subjective term. Secondly, the term "slut" is an extremely ugly one that implies hatred and/or moral condemnation. Moral condemnation of rape victims, or potential victims, is outside the scope of the officer's job, is irrelevant to women's safety, and in fact serves to make women less safe. Predators know that a woman acting or dressing a certain way is more vulnerable because if she complains afterwards she will be condemned.

The other issue is this: Slutwalkers know that rape is not going to be eradicated. But rapists should not be dictating what women are allowed to do, where they are allowed to go, how they are allowed to dress, and what they are allowed to drink. That's why law abiding folks should support victims when they get raped, rather than tsk-tsking the victim's failure to allow the potential of rape to restrict her freedom.

The problem is there is hardly a woman alive -- not your mother (miniskirt era, anyone?), not your sister, not your wife, not your daughter, not your grandmother -- who hasn't crossed the boundary into what you might deem slutty or what a rapist might deem asking for it, at some point or another in her life. Who hasn't flirted a bit, or found herself walking alone in the wrong part of town, or gone out on a date with someone who turned out to be a bit sketchy, or gotten a bit tipsy at a bar or a party, or worn something that turned someone on or unwittingly sent "cues" to some asshat?

By the way, I consider myself rather conservative and prudent when it comes to my own safety. Yet I vividly recall occasions when I would have had a bunch of people saying what a moron or a slut I was.

There was the time I staggered home alone late at night through the streets and tube stations of London -- about an hour's journey -- after a lounge-lizard like co-worker had repeatedly refilled my glass without me realizing it. Or the time on a date, when I realized after the fact that my shirt had been falling open all night to reveal the sexy bra I was wearing. Or the time I went to school acquaintance's dorm room "to study" only to have him make a pass at me and say, "You didn't think I actually wanted to study, did you?"

If I had been raped in any of those circumstances, there would have been a whole chorus of people to criticize my actions and call me a slut. a

Women should be free to do anything they want to, and not be responsible for any of the results. Men should be held accountable not only for their own actions, but for the actions of other men they don't even know.

Georgiana Charlotte is therefore a feminist, just like the slutwalk crowd. Case closed.